The private sector did a pretty good job of not making loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, until the liberal Dems under Clinton passed legislation that made it much easier for the deadbeats to get loans.

And that is what started this whole mess.

Really? Can you point us to one loan banks were forced to give to someone who wasn't qualified?

So when conservatives bemoan the excessive regulations and red tape on business and demand it be cut to allow the prospering of the private sector, what is it exactly do you believe they are discussing?

The private sector did a pretty good job of not making loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back, until the liberal Dems under Clinton passed legislation that made it much easier for the deadbeats to get loans.

And that is what started this whole mess.

And don't forget that Bush also had a hand in it as well

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act. Dubbed "Renewing the Dream," the program would give nearly $2.4 billion in tax credits over the next five years to investors and builders who develop affordable single-family housing in distressed areas.

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a new program that provided grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The act authorized $200 million dollars per year for the program for fiscal years 2004-2007.

They started going into ghettos and low income areas to help the "less fortunate" own homes. These social programs eventually caused the demise of the housing market.

I enjoy the paychecks and opportunity for growth that the private sector prov ides.

Same here. I didn't ask that question idiotboy. I asked a different question. Would this be the same private sector you blame for causing your credit card BK and then hiding behind the protections provided by the public sector?

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

Go research Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, sub-prime loans.

I have. So please point me to a single loan any of those agencies were forced to give to unqualified individuals.

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

And don't forget that Bush also had a hand in it as well

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act. Dubbed "Renewing the Dream," the program would give nearly $2.4 billion in tax credits over the next five years to investors and builders who develop affordable single-family housing in distressed areas.

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a new program that provided grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The act authorized $200 million dollars per year for the program for fiscal years 2004-2007.

They started going into ghettos and low income areas to help the "less fortunate" own homes. These social programs eventually caused the demise of the housing market.

Only if one believes that one side is superior in performance or efficiency than the other. Which they aren't.

Recent history has shown the enthusiasm the private sector has for socializing losses by demanding bailouts from the taxpayer.

The price tags for which only seem to be increasing.

As opposed to hundreds of years of the Government proving it cannot control anything, is inefficient, is corrupt, and is lead by greedy and unethical people. The most recent economic crash is living proof. As is the lack of a plan and response to an oil spill. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred 21 years ago. In 21 years the Government did absolutely nothing to prepare for such an event. And instead of being an enabler they have been an obstruction. Red Tape and bureaucracy have gotten in the way of those most affected in their efforts to contain the spill. By day 3 it could be seen this was going to be bad. At that time the Administration should have called in every resource available along with the brightest minds. There should have been phone calls to the Dutch, British, Saudis, you name.

As for the bailouts, blame your legislative leaders. They should have just said NO. There are constitutionally mandated bankruptcy laws for just this purpose.

As opposed to hundreds of years of the Government proving it cannot control anything, is inefficient, is corrupt, and is lead by greedy and unethical people. The most recent economic crash is living proof. As is the lack of a plan and response to an oil spill. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred 21 years ago. In 21 years the Government did absolutely nothing to prepare for such an event. And instead of being an enabler they have been an obstruction. Red Tape and bureaucracy have gotten in the way of those most affected in their efforts to contain the spill. By day 3 it could be seen this was going to be bad. At that time the Administration should have called in every resource available along with the brightest minds. There should have been phone calls to the Dutch, British, Saudis, you name.

As for the bailouts, blame your legislative leaders. They should have just said NO. There are constitutionally mandated bankruptcy laws for just this purpose.

This is funny stuff idiotboy. Even for you. And that's saying quite a bit. You make all these claims about government then cite two examples of failings done by private entities.

Then you go on to state government (an entity you claim is corrupt and unethical) should have had the best and the brightest on speed dial to clean up the mess caused by a private company who you believe is hamstrung by excessive regulations.

Lastly you claim all this activity wasn't done, when in fact it was. If not, could you please detail for us your participation in the meetings whose outcome was designed to retard the progress of the reaction to the mediation and clean-up effort? You won't because as is your custom your talking about a matter in total ignorance. Something (I might add) you do quite well.

What really upsets the liberals is that they now see their progressive policies failing. Going down in flames actually. Those policies were forcast to fail and given the reasons why in advance. So it breaks down to why would a minority government continue to further domestic and foreign policies that are guaranteed to fail? Could it be because they want it to fail? It seems to be the only logical conclusion. So the the administrations liberal supporters are getting desperate in their defense of their position, all the while knowing they are in the wrong. Its is failing in its application and in its populaity.

Face it, Obama hates the USA. Even reverting to calling WWII the 'Great Patriotic War'. That is the term that Stalin created for WWII. Bigger government controlling everything by a tiny few in power.

The writing is on the wall. Democrat (and some GOP) incumbents have no chance for re election come this november and November 2012. The GOP will retain all three branches, but the goal is to do as much damage as possible before then.

This is funny stuff idiotboy. Even for you. And that's saying quite a bit. You make all these claims about government then cite two examples of failings done by private entities.

Then you go on to state government (an entity you claim is corrupt and unethical) should have had the best and the brightest on speed dial to clean up the mess caused by a private company who you believe is hamstrung by excessive regulations.

Government needs to provide basic services. Law enforcement, protection and response to emergencies, a national defense, closing the borders to Illegal Criminals, etc. They have clearly failed in their ability to respond to emergencies.

One thing a government does not do in a free society is to control the citizens and the business made up of those citizens.

FYI, we have a speed dial system in this country whereby government entities respond to emergencies created by private entries. It is called the 911 system.

Lastly you claim all this activity wasn't done, when in fact it was. If not, could you please detail for us your participation in the meetings whose outcome was designed to retard the progress of the reaction to the mediation and clean-up effort? You won't because as is your custom your talking about a matter in total ignorance. Something (I might add) you do quite well.

I don't have to. All you have to do is listen to the people in the gulf most affected by the lack of an emergency response. Some said an emergency in the gulf so Obama grabbed his clubs and went golfing. The sick part is how the MSM has given the chosen one a free pass on this. They were all over Bush after a Democratic Governor and A democratic Mayor refused help from the federal government after Katrina. At least Bush showed up within a week and talked to the principal players, he didn't wait 60 days to do anything. At this point the Obama plan to fight the fire storm in the gulf is to golfing and let the home owner (aka BP) worry about the problem.

I'm sure the economy would be great, retirement accounts would be wonderful, employment would be strong, etc....

I don't like bailing anyone out, especially corporations. However, when the corporation is essentially the entire industry and a cornerstone of our economy how far do you want to take that?

I don't disagree. What makes me chuckle is when those defending private industry get all huffy about the government intervening in the compensation of execs who have just received tax bailouts.

And then there is all the accompanying nonsense of socialism and tyranny from the usual gang of idiots. One of whom is on this board with a moniker from the Wizard of Oz. Only problem is that unlike his character, ours doesn't really have a brain.

I don't disagree. What makes me chuckle is when those defending private industry get all huffy about the government intervening in the compensation of execs who have just received tax bailouts.

And then there is all the accompanying nonsense of socialism and tyranny from the usual gang of idiots. One of whom is on this board with a moniker from the Wizard of Oz. Only problem is that unlike his character, ours doesn't really have a brain.

If you take government money because of a business failing, then it should be accompanied by rules on exec salaries and bonuses. Just keep in mind that if you restrict it too much, then those with talent will bail and the newly "rescued" company will have lost those who could continue to make that company viable. It's a fine line, but bonuses should always be based on performance.

I take exception with government wanting to interfere with bonuses of executives in companies who have not taken bailouts, etc.

If you take government money because of a business failing, then it should be accompanied by rules on exec salaries and bonuses. Just keep in mind that if you restrict it too much, then those with talent will bail and the newly "rescued" company will have lost those who could continue to make that company viable. It's a fine line, but bonuses should always be based on performance.

I agree.

Originally Posted by ChiefKN

I take exception with government wanting to interfere with bonuses of executives in companies who have not taken bailouts, etc.

I don't disagree. What makes me chuckle is when those defending private industry get all huffy about the government intervening in the compensation of execs who have just received tax bailouts.

And then there is all the accompanying nonsense of socialism and tyranny from the usual gang of idiots. One of whom is on this board with a moniker from the Wizard of Oz. Only problem is that unlike his character, ours doesn't really have a brain.

Two wrongs don't male a right. The bailouts were a horrible idea to begin with just as this stimulus idea is also a bad idea. I am sure as a big union guy you can also understand that those execs have contracts that spell out those bonuses and how they are earned. Each year I actually sign a document that details how my bonus is computed and accept those terms, yes, we sign a contract each year. So when a government comes in and tells the company it must violate the terms of a contract then use, I object. Just like you would object if the government came in and said you must cut the wages of your unionized members by 10%.

And unlike the sheep who follow Obama blindly I do have a brain. I can see that he has no plan for the Gulf of Mexico expect to go golfing and throw a lot of money that way. Funny how liberals think you can solve all the problems by spending more money.

Two wrongs don't male a right. The bailouts were a horrible idea to begin with just as this stimulus idea is also a bad idea. I am sure as a big union guy you can also understand that those execs have contracts that spell out those bonuses and how they are earned. Each year I actually sign a document that details how my bonus is computed and accept those terms, yes, we sign a contract each year. So when a government comes in and tells the company it must violate the terms of a contract then use, I object. Just like you would object if the government came in and said you must cut the wages of your unionized members by 10%.

When I read this rubbish, I am assured you will never be in charge of anything. What about the contract you signed with your credit card companies that you sought protection from the government after you failed to live up to it? Here's the rub on your analogy idiotboy. My contracts (when I was working) were dependent upon there being funds to pay my contract. The execs you defend ran their companies into the ground, demanded a bailout, and then used those taxpayers funds to pay the bonuses. Your analogy only reinforces why you're an idiot.

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

And unlike the sheep who follow Obama blindly I do have a brain. I can see that he has no plan for the Gulf of Mexico expect to go golfing and throw a lot of money that way. Funny how liberals think you can solve all the problems by spending more money.

Hey idiotboy. Make up your mind? Do you want government to stay out of the way? Or do you want it to be the entity that is perfect? You criticize the government for doing their job. You criticize the government when they don't do their job.

So what is the conservative solution to clean up the Gulf that doesn't involve money? In case you didn't know. Things cost money. At least to those of us who buy things and then don't go BK when we realize we spent more than we were making.

When I read this rubbish, I am assured you will never be in charge of anything. What about the contract you signed with your credit card companies that you sought protection from the government after you failed to live up to it? Here's the rub on your analogy idiotboy. My contracts (when I was working) were dependent upon there being funds to pay my contract. The execs you defend ran their companies into the ground, demanded a bailout, and then used those taxpayers funds to pay the bonuses. Your analogy only reinforces why you're an idiot.

REALLY!!!! So with all of the budget deficits in the federal, state, and local governments how come salaries are not being cut.

Hey idiotboy. Make up your mind? Do you want government to stay out of the way? Or do you want it to be the entity that is perfect? You criticize the government for doing their job. You criticize the government when they don't do their job.

So what is the conservative solution to clean up the Gulf that doesn't involve money? In case you didn't know. Things cost money. At least to those of us who buy things and then don't go BK when we realize we spent more than we were making.

This should be fun.

I Criticize the government for spending too much time trying to regulate every swinging man woman and child while not properly preparing to defend this country against invasions or disasters. The function of government is to protect us and defend us; NOT control us.

REALLY!!!! So with all of the budget deficits in the federal, state, and local governments how come salaries are not being cut.

You clearly have no clue about the circumstances about my previous agency. So there is no point in attempting it to explain it to you. Suffice to say, it involves more numbers than had as an available balance on your credit cards.

Originally Posted by ScareCrow57

I Criticize the government for spending too much time trying to regulate every swinging man woman and child while not properly preparing to defend this country against invasions or disasters. The function of government is to protect us and defend us; NOT control us.

What is it you believe regulations are designed to protect when it comes to preventing manmade disasters?